Case 2502411/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Porter v Roy Cave t/a Roy Cave French Polishers — 2019
- Case reference
- 2502411/2019
- Decision date
- 19 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- North Shields
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Porter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the parties had agreed terms of settlement in principle. On that basis, Employment Judge Maidment stayed the proceedings until 17 January 2020 so that the agreement could be formalised.
The order gave either party liberty to apply to restore the proceedings by that date. If no restoration application was made, the Claimant's complaints would be dismissed without the need for any further application, order or judgment.
No findings on the merits of the unfair dismissal or working time complaints are recorded in this judgment, and no monetary award is set out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Terms of settlement had been agreed in principle. The proceedings were stayed until 17 January 2020 to allow the agreement to be formalised, with liberty to either party to apply to restore the proceedings by that date; otherwise the complaint would be dismissed without further application or order. | Settled | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Terms of settlement had been agreed in principle. The proceedings were stayed until 17 January 2020 to allow the agreement to be formalised, with liberty to either party to apply to restore the proceedings by that date; otherwise the complaint would be dismissed without further application or order. | Settled | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.